TexasCHLforum.com

Contrast the language of the 2nd ("shall not be infringed") to that of the 1st amendment ("Congress shall make no law").

It doesn't mean that Congress can't abridge that freedom, it means NO ONE can! (or at least that's the way it should be).

Kythas wrote:I was on another board discussing gun control when the issue of a militia came up. I find the anti-gun people love to state that the 2nd Amendment provides for Americans to own guns if they're part of a militia, and since militias don't exist anymore then it's no longer needed.

I did some digging, and found the following law defining a militia. Basically, we're almost ALL in the militia. Therefore, in my opinion, every American has a duty to own a firearm.

10 USC Ch 13, Sec 311:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Inadequate logic. This definition excludes all women and every man over 45. Pointless and just asks for argument that can poke all sorts of holes in the assertion. I agree that the "militia" issue is a dead issue with the SCOUS, so no need to even have this inadequately supported argument. Point to Supreme Court case law, instead.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment by itself can sometimes be mis interpreted on the surface but any in depth study will show the gun grabbers dont have an arguement. Also when you look at the Constituion as a whole and The Declaration of Independence, the second amendment is without fault and gives citizens the rights to bear arms without debate.

The gun grabbers will use parts of the Constitution to make a point but they have no ground to stand on whatsoever when the entire Constitution and Declaration of Independence is applied.

The 2nd amendment does not stand alone and was never meant to stand alone, it is just a part of an entire document that grants Americans the right to bear arms and guarantees their freedom.

Here is another arguement that is true to its core, there has never been a time in the history of the world when a well regulated Militia was not necessary to security of a free state. Just because we have a military does not mean we have a free state. The founders were separating from a tyranical government that had a military but they were not free.

In the second amendment it clearly states the right of the people, not the military or militias or the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The entire basis of the Constitution was to ensure freedom from tyranical governments.

.

texas1234 wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment by itself can sometimes be mis interpreted on the surface but any in depth study will show the gun grabbers dont have an arguement. Also when you look at the Constituion as a whole and The Declaration of Independence, the second amendment is without fault and gives citizens the rights to bear arms without debate.

The gun grabbers will use parts of the Constitution to make a point but they have no ground to stand on whatsoever when the entire Constitution and Declaration of Independence is applied.

The 2nd amendment does not stand alone and was never meant to stand alone, it is just a part of an entire document that grants Americans the right to bear arms and guarantees their freedom.

Here is another arguement that is true to its core, there has never been a time in the history of the world when a well regulated Militia was not necessary to security of a free state. Just because we have a military does not mean we have a free state. The founders were separating from a tyranical government that had a military but they were not free.

In the second amendment it clearly states the right of the people, not the military or militias or the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The entire basis of the Constitution was to ensure freedom from tyranical governments.

.

try to remember... the government, through the Constitution and Bill of Rights does NOT "grant" rights. The government has no power given it, under our Judeo-Christian foundation, to do such. The Constitution and Bill of Rights "recognizes" our God given rights. Never give the government more authority than it was designed to have.


surv

"The Constitution was made for a religious and moral people and wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams

Surv I think you and I are on the same page.

probably

I've long wondered where gun ownership is specified as a God-given right in the Bible.... I've just assumed it was religious pro-2nd folks imagining that God was a two-gun cowboy. Probably packing a couple of Colt SAAs....

Maybe it's that 11th Commandment that got left out....

RiverCity.45 wrote:I've long wondered where gun ownership is specified as a God-given right in the Bible.... I've just assumed it was religious pro-2nd folks imagining that God was a two-gun cowboy. Probably packing a couple of Colt SAAs....

Maybe it's that 11th Commandment that got left out....

Maybe you never read the part where Jesus advises his followers to arm themselves.

Now, I'll grant that He said sword and not gun, but they didn't exactly have guns then, did they.

Besides, who ever claimed that God-given rights were enumerated in the Bible? After all, even the Constitution says that the rights enumerated are not the only ones that exist, and that the Constitution doesn't list the rights of the people, only restricts the powers of the government...

texas1234 wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment by itself can sometimes be mis interpreted on the surface but any in depth study will show the gun grabbers dont have an arguement. Also when you look at the Constituion as a whole and The Declaration of Independence, the second amendment is without fault and gives citizens the rights to bear arms without debate.

The gun grabbers will use parts of the Constitution to make a point but they have no ground to stand on whatsoever when the entire Constitution and Declaration of Independence is applied.

The 2nd amendment does not stand alone and was never meant to stand alone, it is just a part of an entire document that grants Americans the right to bear arms and guarantees their freedom.

Here is another arguement that is true to its core, there has never been a time in the history of the world when a well regulated Militia was not necessary to security of a free state. Just because we have a military does not mean we have a free state. The founders were separating from a tyranical government that had a military but they were not free.

In the second amendment it clearly states the right of the people, not the military or militias or the government, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The entire basis of the Constitution was to ensure freedom from tyranical governments.

.

I might be wrong, but I believe that the founding fathers real intent was to avoid having a standing Army and rely on a Militia of the people instead. Circumstances forced them to do otherwise.

And that part about only women in the N. G. Well my wife will have something to say about that

texas1234 wrote:"The Constitution was made for a religious and moral people and wholly inadequate to the government of any other."-John Adams

Surv I think you and I are on the same page.

I'm on that same page with both of you but...my concern is that those of us who are "religious and moral people" are becoming a minority

There are moral people that are not religious.

Purplehood wrote:There are moral people that are not religious.

And religious people who are not moral.

Mithras61 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:There are moral people that are not religious.

And religious people who are not moral.

Good catch.